Talk:Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Can anyone tell me why images that are placed on the right of the page are overwriting the text in my browser? I don't believe I can be the only person experiencing this problem.Deb

I'm not having this ptoblem on this article, but it has happened to me on other articles. I'd say it was because the text and image can't both fit on the screen at once, but that's why we have things like word wrap and horizontal scrollbars.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Descent from John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford[edit]

"though every monarch since Henry VII is their descendant." Actually that is every monarch since Edward IV of England. He was son to Cecily Neville, grandson to Joan Beaufort, great-grandson to John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. User:Dimadick

I think the above statement in the article is somewhat obvious and shallow since Edward IV and his father were, more importantly, (in law anyway) descended from a more senior line of John's elder brother Lionel of Antwerp and so was also Henry VIII and all the other subsequent monarchs (only Henry VII was not). The line of John of Gaunt already led through his son Henry IV of England. I propose to remove this line.--Muzhank (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Marriage Date?[edit]

Can anybody help me find out when exactly (year would be enough) Margaret Beaufort was married to Edmund Tudor? Hints appreciated!

-- NicApicella; 27/May/2005

I think she was something like 13 when her son (later Henry VII) was born. Granted, this isn't a date of marriage, and I'm not certain I'm right, but it would probably help detirmine a ballpark figure.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are conflicting opinions on the marriage date, some people think it was in early May 1455, however Elizabeth Norton thinks it was after her 12th Birthday (31 May 1855), and yet others think it was as late as 1 Nov 1455 Tbirduk (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dates of Birth & Death (my edit)[edit]

The original text for the parentetical dats read, "born May 31, 1443 at the Kingston Lacy estate in DorsetJune 29, 1509." I changed to the present version (only the dates). This is a little more "standard" and much more easily readable.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

St John's College, Cambridge[edit]

The Margaret Beaufort article says she founded St John's College. However, the College article says there was no mention of it in her will - although the foundation was suggested by her chaplain. Would it be better to amend this article to match the St John's college article? Thewiltog 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Margaret R" discussion[edit]

quoth the article:

Margaret sometimes signed herself Margaret R, the form of signature used by English queens regnant to indicate the title "Regina," the feminine form of "Rex." This referenced Margaret's own potential claim to the English throne, which would have had precedence over her son's claim, though she never asserted it. Had she successfully done so, she would have been a queen regnant — ruling in her own right, not through marriage — and entitled her to sign documents with the suffix "Regina."

Can we get a source on whether anyone thinks this is actually some kind of assertion of queenship, rather than what looks like speculation? It's kind of hard to argue that she's asserting her rights as queen because she's signing like English queens regnant do, because at this point there hadn't been any English queens regnant. Even Maude had only use the title "Lady of the English." --Jfruh (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is indeed speculation and there is an alternative theory that Margaret R was for Margaret (of) R(ichmond).
I would also ask if anyone can provide a source confirming the theory published here that she acted as Regent? I have never seen a list of English Regents that include her, Henry was proclaimed King at the Windsor Garter meeting of 23 April 1509 with no mention of a regency and it appears Margaret was in very poor health as she drew up her will before Henry VIII's coronation. Tbirduk (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Portrait of Thomas, Lord Stanley[edit]

Should this be included, as it's not remotely authentic? It's definitely of a late 16C man, from the style of the clothes and beard. There is a more authentic, if damaged, tomb effigy. Silverwhistle (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please improve the article if you can. If there is a better image of him, feel free to replace the current one. Surtsicna (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Relation between Margaret and John de la Pole?[edit]

Papal dispensation was granted on 18 August 1450 because the spouses were too closely related.

What is the blood relationship between them? Failed to find it out.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

John de la Pole's mother was Alice Chaucer. Her grandmother was Phillipa de Roet, sister of Katherine Swynford (nee de Roet) . This would make Margaret and John 3rd cousins, sharing great-great-grandparents. (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic
That makes them first cousins thrice removed, which is against the historical laws of consanguity. Third cousins would have been acceptable under Canon Law, as that would be the grandchild of first cousin, with only one line of connection, whereas first cousins have two automatically.Moonraker55 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Many people who don't work with genealogy often get this confused. If your great-grandparent was 1st cousin to someone then your grandparent would be 1st cousin once removed, your parent would be 1st cousin twice removed, and you would be first cousin thrice removed. (For an example within the modern Royal Family, Prince George of Cambridge would be first cousin thrice removed of any of Queen Elizabeth II's first cousins.)
Canon law of the time prohibited marriage within the 4th degree of consanguinity. Siblings would be 1st degree, 1st cousins would be 2nd degree, 2nd cousins would be 3rd degree, and 3rd cousins would be 4th degree. (This is not the only relationship to qualify for 3rd degree consanguinity, but it is the relationship pertinent here.) The children of the de Roet sisters are 1st cousins, their children would be 2nd cousins, and their children would be 3rd cousins. This is the case with Margaret Beaufort and John de la Pole.
Another example of these relationships and Canon law: Catherine of Aragon was 3rd cousin to Henry VII of England. This made her the 3rd cousin once removed of Henry's son Prince Arthur of Wales; thus, Catherine and Arthur did not require a Papal dispensation for marriage as they were 1 step outside the forbidden degree, though they did get a dispensation when betrothed against the possibility that they would marry before the age of consent. History Lunatic (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

Page move[edit]

I moved this page to make the title consistent with the articles on Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon. Richard75 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lady Margaret Beaufort from NPG.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lady Margaret Beaufort from NPG.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 00:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Lady Margaret Beaufort

Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, was the mother of King Henry VII and paternal grandmother of King Henry VIII of England. She was a key figure in the Wars of the Roses, and an influential matriarch of the House of Tudor and foundress of two Cambridge colleges. In 1509, she briefly served as regent of England for her grandson. Henry VII became King of England after leading Lancastrian forces to victory in the Battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485.

Artist: Unknown
ArchiveMore featured pictures...


I think that this section is clumsily written: "She is buried in the Henry VII Lady Chapel of the Abbey, in a black marble tomb topped with a bronze gilded effigy and canopy, between the graves of William and Mary and the tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots." It would be more accurate to say: "She is buried in the Henry VII Lady Chapel of the Abbey, in a black marble tomb topped with a bronze gilded effigy and canopy, and can today be found between the graves of William and Mary and the tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots." Clearly she was not buried between those people since Mary, Queen of Scots was Margaret Beaufort's great-great granddaughter and was buried a considerable time later, and William and Mary even later still!. They may be said to have been buried near to Margaret Beaufort, as she was already in her grave.Moonraker55 (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Marriage to Sir Henry Stafford (c.1425-1471)[edit]

Wikipedia should create a page to "Sir Henry Stafford (c.1425-1471). The page should indlude the following history and reference, and should be used in the false hyperlink listed for Henry Stafford in the section "Third Marriage":

Lord Henry Stafford (c.1425-1471)

Second Son to Henry Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham

Henry married the 15 year old Margaret Beaufort (1443-1509) on 3 January 1458 at Maxstoke Castle, Margaret was the daughter of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset (killed at St Albans in 1455), widow of Edmund Tudor (killed at Mortimer’s Cross in 1460) and mother to the infant Henry Tudor, later Henry VII. Household accounts and personal letters indicate that the marriage was a happy one with the couple rarely apart and unusually for the period they always celebrated their wedding anniversary. They lived initially at Bourne Castle in Lincolnshire.

Henry fought at the Battle of Towton on the Lancastrian side but survived and was later pardoned by Edward IV on 25 June 1461.

Shortly afterwards, Edward IV purchased Henry Tudor’s wardship for £1000.00 and placed him in the Household of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, a staunch Yorkist.

In 1466, and to celebrate the marriage of Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham to the Queen’s sister, Edward IV presented Henry and Margaret with Woking Old Hall, a palatial house in Surrey which became their principle residence. His brother John, with whom he remained close, was a regular visitor at Woking Old Hall “to hunt and play cards”. Their staff included fifty servants, many of them “gentle born” including their Receiver-General Reginald Bray (d.1503) who went on to fight for Henry Tudor at Bosworth in 1485.

In May 1467 Henry was summoned to attend the Royal Council at Mortlake Palace and in May 1468 Henry and Margaret were again in London, staying at the Mitre Inn in Cheapside to hear the Kings public announcement of his intention to invade France, an invasion that was subsequently postponed until 1475.

In 1468 he attended Lord Scales at the Grand Tournament against the Bastard of Burgundy along with his young nephew, Henry, Duke of Buckingham.

On 20 December 1468 later Edward IV paid the couple the ultimate compliment of visiting Old Woking Hall to attend a hunt and afterwards dined with them at their hunting lodge at Brookwood. Household Accounts show that they ate in a tent of purple sarsenet serenaded by the royal minstrels. Conger eel, lamprey and 700 oysters were served off a pewter dinner service bought specially for the occasion

Although unwell, Henry is believed to have suffered from the skin disease “St Anthony’s Fire”, erysipelas (believed at the time to be a form of leprosy), he was with Edward IV on 12 March 1470 at the Battle of Losecoat Field where the rebel forces of Sir Robert, Lord Wells (Margaret Beaufort’s stepbrother) were defeated. Papers found on the battle provided clear evidence at to Warwick and Clarence’s involvement in the Lanacastrian uprising and Henry rode with the King throughout April during the pursuit of Warwick and Clarence which culminated in their flight to Calais. Shortly afterwards Henry visited Maxley to advise Margaret’s mother, Lady Wells, the news of her son’s execution.

In September 1470, Warwick and Clarence were once more on English soil. Edward, caught out by the speed of their invasion, was forced to flee into exile. Henry Stafford though initially arrested was released shortly afterwards following petition from his wife. On 27 October, Henry, Margaret, Henry Tudor and his uncle, Jasper attended the redemption of Henry VII at Westminster and dined at the palace. Margaret suddenly found herself part of the Royal Family and henceforth she would dedicate herself to the Lancastrian cause and the enhancement of her son, Henry Tudor.

On 24 March, the Duke of Somerset visited Henry and Margaret, his first cousin, at Woking Old Hall in an attempt to persuade Henry to join the Lancastrian army being mustered to defend against Edward’s inevitable return. Henry was in no mood to commit and subsequently sent retainers to Somerset’s headquarters, with instruction to discuss matters for as long as possible and delay the issue.

However on April 12 he was in London to greet Edward on his triumphant entry into the city and had by then made up his mind to join him, accompanied by the Steward of his Household, John Gilpyn, and other retainers. He was so unprepared for campaign that not only was his harness incomplete, having to send for the chain mail gussets that protected the vulnerable joints; he also had to purchase a horse for Gilypn. Mindful of his narrow escape from Towton he ordered ten of his men to wait for him at Kingston-upon-Thames to ensure, that should things go badly, he was assured of being able to cross Kingston Bridge in a hurry.

Although choosing the winning side, Henry was so badly wounded at Barnet that he never recovered and died in his bed on 14 October 1471. In his will he bequeathed thirty shillings to the Parish Church at Old Woking, a set of velvet horse trappings to his stepson, Henry Tudor, a bay courser to his brother, the Earl of Wiltshire, another horse to his receiver-general, Reginald Bray and £160 for a chantry priest to sing Masses for the repose of his soul. The rest of his estate went to “my beloved Margaret”.

John Gilpyn also survived Barnet and continued serving at Woking Old Hall until his death in 1500. Many other Stafford retainers, including John and Richard Harper and John Kymer, also remained loyal to Margaret. John Kymer and John Harper both were involved in the Exeter rising in support of the 1483 rebellion (see 2nd Duke of Buckingham) and both later went on to fight under Sir Reginald Bray at Bosworth in 1485.

Margaret Beaufort’, whose son was now the only surviving Lancastrian claimant to the throne, sent her son into exile in France and in 1472 she married Thomas, Lord Stanley.

reference: (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Dan Kerns153.31.113.27 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you have done on this. Like you, I was sad to find a red link on the name of this interesting man, having seen the portrayal of him on television by Michael Maloney. If I can find the time in the next few weeks, I could take this material and incorporate it into a new article, adding plenty of blue links. If I do, I shall have to be careful to distinguish between the various Henry Staffords and Margaret Beauforts!
Of course, if there is someone else out there who would like to do this, please do not worry about treading on my toes. My health is not good and I may take a while to get round to it.
LynwoodF (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of surname[edit]

The pronunciation of the surname is given as:

(Br [ˈbɛʊfɨt][1])
  1. ^ "Beaufort", and "Pronunciation Guide", §22, in Webster's Biographical Dictionary (1943), Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

I tried to pronounce this as shown and it sounded like the way posh people talked when I was a lad. I notice that the dictionary referred to is nearly as old as I am, and so I thought I would substitute a pronunciation in current RP.

LynwoodF (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there can be one correct pronunciation. Byew-fet/byou-fet (as close as I can get) is so rarely used nowadays. With the White Queen TV series being on, there have been a lot of documentaries about the Tudor period on the BBC, and she is universally called Beau/Bow-fert.
A 70 year old American dictionary is probably not the best source for such a thing. Historically we have no way to prove how she pronounced it (she probably never used it anyway, as she would have taken her surname from her father's and then her own titles, rather than a family name).
I'm not saying its "wrong", but I think its wrong to present it as a singular correct pronunciation. I've added both pronunciations and converted them to the IPA pronunciation thing that wikipedia likes.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the general thrust of what you are saying and I was in two minds whether to give the "Byew-" pronunciation as an alternative. However, it is so rare that I decided not to bother with it. I am not keen on the way WP wants me to spell English in IPA, so I go my own way, following what Oxford says, but I am not going to undo your good work. I just felt that the pronunciation given was so ridiculous to the modern ear that I must change it.
LynwoodF (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, where did you get the "-fet" pronunciation from? As far as I am aware, the alternation in current RP is between /bəʊfət/ and /bjuːfət/.
LynwoodF (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry its as close as I could get I could get it at the time. Its a tricky one to spell out using either English or the IPA because its basically non-standard pronunciation. Fet and Fert are too long because the "eh"/"er" is too pronounced -it should be a short and minor sound. Its closer to a short "foot" ("FT") or "FUT" Bow-Fut Byew-Fut. The "BYEW" doesn't quite get the singular sound of that first syllable either. Feel free to fiddle, but I don't think there's anyway to get it perfect. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the above. My problem with WP's pronunciation scheme is that it is a compromise which attempts to accommodate all the major varieties of English. I prefer the Oxford attitude; they give separate British and US pronunciations. That said, I propose to bring the whole thing in line with the WP scheme. In particular, as the second syllable is unstressed, we need to bring the schwa symbol into play in both the IPA and respelt versions.
LynwoodF (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A note on Philippa Gregory[edit]

Okay, she has a degree in history but her Ph.D is in 18th century literature, which is in no way relevant to the content of her historical novels, so referring to her as "Dr" Philippa Gregory in this article is in no way indicative of specialist knowledge or research on the subject. In her TV documentary series "The Real White Queen and her Rivals", she presents certain facts but also adds her own interpretation of them, eg. referring to Margaret Beaufort as "cunning" is not a fact, it is simply her opinion based on such facts as she knows. Likewise, her suggestion that Beaufort was responsible for the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, whilst a valid theory, is not a fact, nor did she present it as such in the documentary.

Gregory's novels are fiction, and as such are not valid references for this or any other article on history, except in the "Popular Culture" section. They are simply one individual's interpretation of the known facts (which are few) and are deliberately embroidered on for the purposes of making her novels more interesting to the reader. I would suggest that anyone who comes here thinking they know what happened because they have read the novels (which I enjoyed) or watched the TV series (which I also enjoyed) are on the wrong track. Those who have watched the documentary are better-equipped to recognise the difference between fact and fiction but should also recognise that Gregory does not claim to be correct in every detail of her interpretation: she simply says "I believe" that this is what happened.Deb (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't confuse where the information came from. NONE of the information came from or has been referenced to a fictions novel. The information added came from a BBC documentary; a reputable and reliable source. The BBC aren't in the habit of pouring out un-researched historical documentaries after all.
You also over-egg the influence of Gregory. The documentary is one of a number that have been on in the recent period to coincide with the White Queen TV series. The documentary in question featured a number of historians and was very clear between what was their "opinion" and historical fact.
Margaret Beaufort is named a suspect in the princes in the tower mystery in many places. for example. The article did not state she was guilty of the murders; just that she is regarded suspect. She had access to the tower (as many other nobles did; not least when their husband's controlled access.). Access to the tower is a very different thing to access to the princes; hence why the article should state she had access to the tower and not to the boys. Another fact verified in the documentary.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The article by Baldwin which you cite was written to coincide with the showing of the documentary, not, as you imply, one of "many places" where she is suggested as a suspect. Baldwin himself is such an eminent historian he doesn't even have his own wikipedia article. As to the BBC not being in the habit of pouring out un-researched historical documentaries, I'm afraid their standards are not high, particularly when it comes to anything relating to women or involving the bedroom habits of the monarchy. Naturally, this is my own judgement and I cannot make use of that to disprove anything that was said, but there were certainly factual errors. Moreover, statements like "Anne made a calculated, hard-headed decision" are so subjective that they would never be allowed in a wikipedia article except in quotation marks as something that Philippa Gregory said, which most historians would find debatable at the very least, yet this was made to sound like a known fact. Amy License, another eminent historian, made similarly sweeping statements that were not backed up. Deb (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Outside of 'X in the media', why would we want to use anything else than reputable academic historians for history articles? And any sweeping statements about the personality of a historical character absolutely have to be attributed and if there are other views those need inclusion. Deb, not having an article isn't that important (although no article and no mention in other reliable sources would be, but I don't think that's the case here) Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, David Baldwin (historian) does now have an article, and rather a good one, written by none other than User:Rushton2010! Deb (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)